Is Kosminski still the best suspect we have?

[Wickerman]

....

I wonder why: 'no public good from come it' meant it wasn't a good idea to disclose the identity of the murderer.

FWIW.....I suspect he meant it would prove embarrassing for the police if he released the name.

[Wickerman]

Is this based on him being 23 and somehow a 23 year old couldn't have done this, or witness sightings which suggest an older man?

As a general statement, of course a 23 yr old can kill with a knife. It's just that general statements are by their nature, too vague.

If we're looking to identify a suspect, we need to be specific.
Your last point, is actually the first point - that no suspect was described by any witness as a 23 yr old. If I'm not mistaken, the lowest age was 28, the highest being perhaps 40?

Incorrectly identifying a person's age at night also is no excuse.
With the exception of Kelly, who was discovered by people who knew her. The other Canonical victims were all discovered by people who didn't know them, and in each case the victim's age was estimated too low. Which should mean if a 23 yr old was seen, he would have been described as 18-20?, people look younger in poor light.

The other point is one of practicality. We would need to entertain the idea of a 23 yr old hooking up with a 45 yr old prostitute. She would more likely slap him behind the ear, and send him back to his Mom., he's still wet behind the ears.
To which some might say they were half drunk and desperate, which then sends us down the path of Special Pleading.

Apart from those two obvious points, we are left with nothing to incriminate him throughout the series of murders. No-one can say he fit 'the description', or 'he was seen', because no-one knows what Kozminski looked like.
Sure, he lived in the area, along with thousands of others.
We also do not know his mental condition in 1888, he could have been a lunatic, or he could have been perfectly sane.
He was well able to turn up in court a full year after the murders (Dec. 1889) to defend a summons for 'Unmuzzled Dog'.

Nah!,...."Nothing to see here"....

[Wickerman]

Only Mary Ann Cox got a good look at the suspect,with Blotchy.

Macnaghten, in my opinion, had confused the two murders.

In the initial draft of his Memorandum he talks about three Jews interrupting him in Berner St.
Confusing the three Jews - Lawende & Co., with Diemschitz, who was alone.
So, his "City PC in Mitre Sq", may have been PC Smith in Berner St.
The man PC Smith saw was a genuine suspect, the police published his description in the press.

Macnaghten is bound to support a police constable's sighting of a suspect, in preference to a regular citizen (Cox, Long, Hutchinson).

[Varqm]

Macnaghten, in my opinion, had confused the two murders.

In the initial draft of his Memorandum he talks about three Jews interrupting him in Berner St.
Confusing the three Jews - Lawende & Co., with Diemschitz, who was alone.
So, his "City PC in Mitre Sq", may have been PC Smith in Berner St.
The man PC Smith saw was a genuine suspect, the police published his description in the press.

Macnaghten is bound to support a police constable's sighting of a suspect, in preference to a regular citizen (Cox, Long, Hutchinson).

Smith said he did not notice him much.Cox on the other hand could identify him again.

[Wickerman]

Smith said he did not notice him much.Cox on the other hand could identify him again.

Smith provided enough detail for the police to release this description.
Which is more than we get from Cox, plus, the description she gave was never officially released as a 'wanted' suspect.


"At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at one a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A man, aged 28, height 5ft 8in, complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance; carried a parcel wrapped up in a newspaper.

"Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard London, S.W.

[John Wheat]

I must admit, when I wrote it at the time I knew it was a loaded question And Kosminski is not my preferred suspect (if I had one).

However, he is a named suspect who official sources tell us was positively identified but escaped justice on a technicality.

We can question the validity of those claims and Kosminski's suitability, but we can't say this about any other suspect.

But how is Kosminski the best suspect when he's not even your top suspect? Also we don't even know if we are looking at the right man in Aaron Kosminski.

Cheers John

[Varqm]

Smith provided enough detail for the police to release this description.
Which is more than we get from Cox, plus, the description she gave was never officially released as a 'wanted' suspect.


"At 12.35 a.m., 30th September, with Elizabeth Stride, found murdered at one a.m., same date, in Berner-street - A man, aged 28, height 5ft 8in, complexion dark, small dark moustache; dress, black diagonal coat, hard felt hat, collar and tie; respectable appearance; carried a parcel wrapped up in a newspaper.

"Information to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Police Office, Great Scotland-yard London, S.W.

But we have to go by their testimonies not what the police thought.There was some bias against woman.? In the timeline of the murders,Cox was further,but Hutchinson derailed them.

[Wickerman]

But we have to go by their testimonies not what the police thought.There was some bias against woman.?......

Sorry Varqm, I don't understand what that means.
PC Smith was an eye witness, his description is not "what the police thought".
We don't have the actual testimony from the Stride inquest, all we have are press versions of it.
A police release of a description is the genuine article.

[Varqm]

Sorry Varqm, I don't understand what that means.
PC Smith was an eye witness, his description is not "what the police thought".
We don't have the actual testimony from the Stride inquest, all we have are press versions of it.
A police release of a description is the genuine article.

He did not have a 'good look at the suspect' as Cox.With Smith it is not mentioned he could identify the suspect again which is what was needed for identification.Whoever was the seaside witness was invalid.Only Cox could.

[Scorpio]

I am with the FBI on this one: Adult, working class male familiar with geography and culture, lives within walking distance of crime scenes, eccentric and possible anti social habits. If its not Aaron then its someone similar.

[Wickerman]

He did not have a 'good look at the suspect' as Cox.With Smith it is not mentioned he could identify the suspect again which is what was needed for identification.Whoever was the seaside witness was invalid.Only Cox could.

He was talking about the face (ie; "Did you see the man's face?") - meaning eyes, nose, moustache, details like that.
Cox faired little better - Blotchy face, Carroty moustache.
It is the facts that we should be concerned with - like why was Smith's description published, and Cox's was not?
The decision rests with Scotland Yard.

[Wickerman]

I am with the FBI on this one: Adult, working class male familiar with geography and culture, lives within walking distance of crime scenes, eccentric and possible anti social habits. If its not Aaron then its someone similar.

Do you recall any cases where FBI Profiling caught anyone?

[Scorpio]

Profilers help suspect identification; We are discussing suspects here.

[Wickerman]

Profilers help suspect identification; We are discussing suspects here.

OK, so they should look for an 'Adult', - great choice!

And, possibly a working-class male, who knows the area, and lives within walking distance - that should narrow it down.
(Doubt the trams & trains even ran at that time of night)

And then, can be eccentric? - in what, attire?, mannerisms?, is this because of Hutchinson's suspect?

And possibly anti-social? - When?......Except, when soliciting his victim. Then, he needs to be very likable, very pleasant, win them over.

So, nothing about any mental problems?, - must have been your average disgruntled British insomniac?

[Trevor Marriott]

When I looked at it a long while back, my hunch was/is that there is something not quite right with the marginalia, and so I didn't take it for granted.

Has there been any further developments in assessing the marginalia, in particular has anything come to light that reasonably diminishes its credibility?

There is a full chapter on the marginalia and its flaws, to be found in my book "Jack the Ripper the real truth" to much to post on here

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk